How to track a zombie (Updated)

0
Investigative journalist / zombie hunter at work
Investigative journalist / zombie hunter at work

I wasn’t aware of the details leading up to the extraordinary admission by Socorro Hernández that, yes, indeed dead people voted in Venezuela. But thanks to leading Venezuelan economist Omar, we found out how the information was unearthed. He points us to Puzkas.

Eugenio G. Martínez (aka Puzkas), a well-known Venezuelan journalist who covers the CNE beat, wanted to look into this issue. Of course, without looking at the “notebooks,” i.e., the voter rolls that tell you – after the election – who showed up to vote, it’s nearly impossible to know if a person known to be dead actually voted. The trick is that the notebooks are firmly in the hands of the CNE, and they are refusing to look into them.

What Puzkas did was clever and a half. He looked at the voter registries of those voting centers where reported participation was 100%, i.e., where according to the CNE, everyone on the notebooks showed up to vote. We know what the raw voter rolls for those centers are, because the opposition has all the voter rolls – they simply don’t know who showed up to vote.

He then crossed those data with the list of deceased persons maintained by the Venezuelan government, and voilá, zombies appeared.

Puzkas not only focused on April 14th. He noticed at least 90 dead people voted on October 7th as well.

The evidence is incontrovertible, so much so that it prompted Socorro Hernández to issue her startling admission that the Venezuelan system is not fully armored.

Hats off to Puzkas. It’s too bad that thanks to his intrepid reporting, he is apparently being banned from doing his job at the CNE.

Update: Frequent commenter amieres thinks Puzkas misread the CNE data. CNE Board Member Sandra Olbitas concurs, saying that there are no centers where 100% of registered voters actually voted. She also says that there wer eno zombie voters. She repeats the mantra – the system is blindado!

I await further clarification on this issue while you CNE nerds hash this one out.

1 COMMENT

  1. Hat’s off to Puzkas… Indeed! In this life everything goes around. In no time hopefully he will be the head honcho of the CNE in democracy. Meanwhile he is just happy with his role as ghostbuster #1

  2. Ms. Hernandez’s response, though not identical, is redolent of a widely cited, though conceivably apocryphal, example of oxymoronic military intelligence and British HoiyToity all in one. Just prior to the Arnhem offensive (A Bridge Too Far), a captain told the general of two SS Panzer Divisions, ostensibly resting hence not taken into account, that were in fact resting just over the last, now famous, bridge: “The plans are made; don’t bother me with facts” was the huffy reply. (from the back room: “Ther’s nihil sub sole novum, mate.”

  3. I deleted a few comments having to do with the fact that only 90 dead voters were found in the October 7th election. As the article makes clear, Puzkas was forced to work with only a tiny sample – the centers where turnout was 100%. The fact that he “only” found 90 dead voters is irrelevant since he wasn’t looking at the entire registry. His point was that finding dead voters voting absolutely trashes the idiotic idea that the system is tamper-proof.

    If I can help it, I’m going to prevent trolls from deviating the conversation with straw men.

    • It´d be interesting to know how much is 90 in proportion of the elctoral registry in those mesas…Puzkas, are you reading?

      • If a quick Excel count of 2012 results is correct, that would be 39 centers with 0% abstention, totaling 18.851 registered voters 0.5%,

        if we extrapolate that (in a wildly and raw way) to the total RE, that could round to some 90.000 potential dead voters…

    • not only that but puzkas took his whistleblowing further and to effective channels.

      Funny how we can get caught up in complex mathematical theory and the like, forgetting that we are dealing, for the most part, with imbeciles whose machinations are a lot simpler to figure out.

  4. “The evidence in incontrovertible”
    Typo aside, unfortunately the evidence is wrong.
    I went to verify it myself and what I found is that those centers that allegedly had 100% of participation in reality had normal levels of participation: less than a 100% so is not possible to affirm that the dead voted.

    This is what I did.
    1.- Checked in this list of deceased people that voted according to El Universal:
    http://images.eluniversal.com/2013/06/01/difuntos-elecciones.pdf
    2.- Picked any name, for instance the first one and checked the center in the CNE website:
    http://www.cne.gob.ve/resultado_presidencial_2012/lvg/33/reg_170302001021.html
    ELECTORES ESPERADOS 569
    ELECTORES EN ACTAS TRANSMITIDAS 100 % 569
    ELECTORES ESCRUTADOS 569
    PARTICIPACIÓN RELATIVA 100 %
    VOTOS ESCRUTADOS 421
    VOTOS VÁLIDOS 96,67 % 407
    VOTOS NULOS 3,32 % 14
    ACTAS TOTALES 1
    ACTAS ESCRUTADAS 100 % 1

    Sure enough mesa 2 indicates 100% of participation (PARTICIPACION RELATIVA) because voters counted (ELECTORES ESCRUTADOS) is equal to voters expected (ELECTORES ESPERADOS) = 569, but keep reading actual votes counted (VOTOS ESCRUTADOS) is only 421.
    So the actual participation is not 100% is 421 / 569 = 73.98% pretty normal.

    What happened?
    The answer is found in the tally document, the “acta”, if you click in “Detalle del Acta”, you’ll find the acta was Manual not automated:

    Detalle del Acta
    Candidato Partido Votos
    Acta recibida de forma: MANUAL
    170302001021.0001.7

    In the event of a failure of the machine the tally is done by hand and sent in. Every MANUAL ACTA has the same defect, the ELECTORES ESCRUTADOS is wrongly reported as 100% of the voters but the votes counted is reported correctly.

    In conclusion, there is no proof of dead people voting, just sloppy investigation.

    • You are mixing things up.

      Electores esperados = the people registered to vote
      Electores escrutados = People who voted
      Votos escrutados = votes counted
      Votos validos = valid votes (taking out nulls)

      That’s why it says 100% relative participation.

      I hate CNE’s language. It is not only confusing but varies from election to election.

      • “It is not only confusing but varies from election to election.”

        Just like Lucena’s haircut, just like Chavismo’s dirty tricks.

      • I don’t think I’m mixing things up.
        Anyway the point is participation was not 100% in any of those centers.

      • In what scenario in an election where every voter gets one vote can ELECTORES ESCRUTADOS be different than VOTOS ESCRUTADOS?

        It’s obvious that the number reported in ELECTORES ESCRUTADOS is wrong. Actual participation was 421.not 569.

        • I am trying to remember the origin of such terminology but I think it has something to do with the fact that about 90k votes were lost. Machines went on to manual voting and the boxes with the tallies disappeared. So they came up for the 7O result with this funny language.

    • It sure seems like CNE’s is full of these… idiosyncracies. First I learn that that it’s “normal” that some mesas reported a couple voters in 2012, but reported hundred of vorters in 2013, now I learn that “electores escrutados” only sometimes corresponds to, err, electores actually escrutados.

    • Sadly, this is true, unless someone has a better explanation. I checked a couple of names myself. Maybe I’ll try them all tonight.

      The one I checked to be true is the last one from the 2010 elections. In it, absolutely 100% of registered electors voted, and the guy has been dead since 2004 according to the table.

      http://www.cne.gob.ve/divulgacion_parlamentarias_2010/index.php?e=03&m=05&p=01&c=030501008&t=1&ca=00&v=02&cir=1

      I was excited. Now, kind of disapointed.

  5. Still Amieres did not prove that the actual votes transmitted were not 569. It might be that the actual votes “escrutados” were 421 but the sent were 569. It could be that the guys writing the “acta” forgot that they had lied on the number of votes reported and wrote the right number of the “escrutados”. Can you find out Amieres if this is possible?

    • The acta has the detail of votes per party. Here is the complete Acta:

      Detalle del Acta
      Candidato Partido Votos
      Acta recibida de forma: MANUAL
      170302001021.0001.7
      HUGO CHAVEZ PSUV 185
      HUGO CHAVEZ P.P.T. 7
      HUGO CHAVEZ PODEMOS 22
      HUGO CHAVEZ P.C.V. 16
      HUGO CHAVEZ TUPAMARO 7
      HUGO CHAVEZ MEP 6
      HUGO CHAVEZ UPV 1
      HUGO CHAVEZ REDES 3
      HUGO CHAVEZ IPCN 4
      HUGO CHAVEZ NCR 4
      HUGO CHAVEZ PRT 8
      HUGO CHAVEZ CRV 6
      HENRIQUE CAPRILES RADONSKI U.N.T.C. 34
      HUGO CHAVEZ VTV 0
      HENRIQUE CAPRILES RADONSKI M.P.J. 16
      HENRIQUE CAPRILES RADONSKI MIN-UNIDAD 2
      HENRIQUE CAPRILES RADONSKI UNPARVE 1
      HENRIQUE CAPRILES RADONSKI VP 0
      HENRIQUE CAPRILES RADONSKI MOVEV 0
      HENRIQUE CAPRILES RADONSKI FL 0
      HENRIQUE CAPRILES RADONSKI UNIDAD DR 2
      HENRIQUE CAPRILES RADONSKI CAMBIO PANA 0
      HENRIQUE CAPRILES RADONSKI PIEDRA 2
      HENRIQUE CAPRILES RADONSKI UNOE 24
      HENRIQUE CAPRILES RADONSKI VPA 0
      HENRIQUE CAPRILES RADONSKI UVIVZLA 3
      HENRIQUE CAPRILES RADONSKI PROCOMUNIDAD 0
      HENRIQUE CAPRILES RADONSKI VA PA LANTE 0
      HENRIQUE CAPRILES RADONSKI AP 11
      HENRIQUE CAPRILES RADONSKI MUD 43
      HENRIQUE CAPRILES RADONSKI UDEMO 0
      HENRIQUE CAPRILES RADONSKI FDC 1
      HENRIQUE CAPRILES RADONSKI MAPVE 5
      HENRIQUE CAPRILES RADONSKI MOVERSE 0
      HENRIQUE CAPRILES RADONSKI MPV 1
      REINA SEQUERA PODER LABORAL 0
      HENRIQUE CAPRILES RADONSKI VTV 0
      LUIS REYES ORA 0
      MARIA BOLIVAR PDUPL 0
      REINA SEQUERA VTV 0
      ORLANDO CHIRINO PSL 0
      YOEL ACOSTA CHIRINOS VBR 0

      It adds to 414 + 7 null votes = 421 votes
      That’s how many votes were reported.

  6. Ok, not that many dead people… but 100% of the rest? They all showed up, including the dead people. What a coincidence.

  7. you can visit Eugenio Martinez blog in http://puzkas.blogspot.com/ (Spanish), the pice is in the Universal, but soon should be in his blog.

    I want to make some comments, this findings are related to October 2012, September 2010 elections, There is no finding of this “resurrection act” in the few centers that meet the conditions in April election.
    What this does probe is that there is a way (and had happen before) to violate the motto “one person one vote”, and there is the cleaver of the piece, yes 90 people is not a big number but is a small number that can be verified.

    This cast a doubt over all the checking system(SAI, CAPTAHUELLA Plan Republica and Voting Machines), because in this centers an Audit in the manner propose by C.N.E will show nothing wrong and evidence say other thing.

    I think Eugenio was upset because of last press conference events and drop the bomb, what surprise me is that one (me included) make the effort to check this as it seem pretty simple and obvious.

    Kudos for @Puzkas

  8. The problem is how the system works. It use to be that the local prefect informed el contralor de cedulacion (that according to the former constitution couldn’t be from the governing party) about any at the parish he worked at. It use to be, sort of speaking, “automated”.

    Now, a relative of some sort has to go and actually ask that the deceased (who can’t do on its own) be removed from the registry. Majority of people don’t do this of course.

  9. I don’t really know if Puzkas made a mistake or not, but I’m sure the people who know about this will hash it out in the next few days. In the meantime, I’ve posted an update to both this post and the previous one.

  10. Wait, so how can “Votos Escrutados” be different than “Electores Escrutados”. And since when do we “escrutar” the electors?

    escrutar.

    (Del lat. scrutāre).

    1. tr. Indagar, examinar cuidadosamente, explorar.

    2. tr. Reconocer y computar los votos que para elecciones u otros actos análogos se han dado secretamente por medio de bolas, papeletas o en otra forma.

    • I’ve asked this question many many times (including the CSB data folks and puzkas himself), but never received a coherent response until now, by amieres.

      There are 172 tables in the October 2012 elections in which these numbers (“electores escrutados” and “votos escrutados” do not match). Indeed, I just checked a random sample of them and yes, their Actas are manual, instead of automated. Thank you, Amieres!

      I hadn’t seen any such discrepancies in the 2013 data; the numbers matched in all tables, until now. If you take a look now, there are a few tables (haven’t run scripts yet to count) in which the numbers do not match. But, much more alarmingly, in some cases, there are MORE “votos escrutados” than “electores escrutados”. ??? What?

      Aggregated example: In Portuguesa, there are 414 more votes than voters…
      http://www.cne.gob.ve/resultado_presidencial_2013/r/1/reg_160000.html

  11. The trick is that the notebooks are firmly in the hands of the CNE, and they are refusing to look into them.

    In the U.S. these records are public notice, during and after elections. The refusal to make these records public stinks. There is no reason to withhold these records except to conceal fraud.

Leave a Reply